BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 08.11.2023 Delivered on: 01.12.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI C.M.A.(MD).No.238 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3548 & 5476 of 2018 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Mahalakshmi Nivasham, Opposite to Kiruba Hospital, Rajaji Road, Kumadasamypatty, Post Box No.15, Salem – 636 007.

.. Appellant / Respondent No.2 Vs.

1.K.S.Vasatha .. 1^st Respondent /Petitioner No.1

2.Ramkumar (Mentally retarded- Rep. by his mother and natural guardian K.S.Vasantha, the

1st respondent herein ) .. 2^nd Respondent/Petitioner No.2

3.Subbash Subramanian .. 3^rd Respondent/Petitioner No.3 4.Mariappan .. 4^th Respondent/1^st Respondent Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in M.C.O.P.No.154 of

2015, dated 03.08.2017.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr. K.K.Senthil for R1 to R3 : No appearance for R4

JUDGMENT

P.B.BALAJI,J.

The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the award in M.C.O.P.

No.154 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant before us.

2. The respondents 1 to 3, as claimants filed the M.C.O.P., seeking compensation for the accident that occurred on 04.10.2014, resulting in the death of one Sivaraman, who is the husband of the first claimant and the father of the claimants 2 & 3. The second claimant -

Ramkumar is a mentally challenged son of the deceased - Sivaraman.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was riding his two wheeler and travelling from South to North, returning home, after work and the first respondent's lorry being driven by its driver, rashly and negligently, came and dashed the two wheeler resulting in the death of the two wheeler rider – Sivaraman. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was 59 years and he was working as Chief Personal Assistant at BHEL, Tiruchirappalli and earning Rs.93,270.40 per month. As he was only the breadwinner of the family, the claimants prayed for Rs.75,00,000/- as total compensation.

4. The 4^th respondent, owner of the lorry which was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company remained exparte.

5. However, the appellant as second respondent in the M.C.O.P., filed a counter stating that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the deceased and in any event, the amounts claimed by the claimants were highly excessive and exorbitant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and the occurrence witness, one Harikrishnan, was examined as P.W.2 and 10 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents, there was no oral or documentary evidence forthcoming.

7. The Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.93,270.40 per month and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of '9', awarded compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.67,15,440/-; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation; Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.3,00,000/- towards shock and mental agony, loss of amenities and loss of social pleasure and awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,70,440/- to the claimants.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has challenged the same on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.93,270.40 p.m., in the absence of pay-slip being produced by the claimants; the Tribunal erred in applying multiplicant of Rs.93,270/- for entire 9 years, when the deceased was having only about 8 or 9 months service left; the Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier formula; the award of conventional damages of Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses and transportation, Rs.3,00,0